No abstract

We examine four life course models as they relate to adolescent SES, adult SES, and cardiovascular risk – the sensitive period, pathways, accumulation, and social mobility models. Accounting for race/ethnic and gender differences in life course processes, we analyzed Waves I and IV of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health, a nationally representative sample of individuals enrolled in grades 7–12 when they were first interviewed in 1994/5. We restricted our sample to whites, blacks, and Latinos who were interviewed in Waves I and IV and provided biomarker data (n=11,397). The cardiovascular risk score at Wave IV combined waist circumference, blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c, and C-reactive protein. We found evidence for each of the four life course models for white women, whereas the sensitive period was indicated for white men. Upward mobility was also associated with higher CVD risk among white men as compared to those who were socio-economically advantaged at both time points. The pathway model was significant for Latino women. No life course models were significant for black men or women or Latino men. Our findings demonstrate the importance of applying an intersectional lens to understanding CVD risk over the life course.

Use of community-based participatory research (CBPR) approaches is increasing with the goal of making more meaningful and impactful advances in eliminating cancer-related health disparities. While many reports have espoused its advantages, few investigations have focused on comparing CBPR-oriented recruitment and retention. Consequently, the purpose of this analysis was to report and compare two different CBPR approaches in two cancer prevention studies. We utilized frequencies and chi-squared tests to compare and contrast subject recruitment and retention for two studies that incorporated a randomized, controlled intervention design of a dietary and physical activity intervention among African Americans. One study utilized a de-centralized approach to recruitment in which primary responsibility for recruitment was assigned to the general AA community of various church partners whereas the other incorporated a centralized approach to recruitment in which a single lay community individual was hired as research personnel to lead recruitment and intervention delivery. Both studies performed equally well for both recruitment and retention (75 and 88% recruitment rates and 71 and 66% retention rates) far exceeding those rates traditionally cited for cancer clinical trials (~5%). The de-centralized approach to retention appeared to result in statistically greater retention for the control participants compared to the centralized approach (77 vs 51%, P<0.01). Consequently, both CBPR approaches appeared to greatly enhance recruitment and retention rates of AA populations. We further note lessons learned and challenges to consider for future research opportunities.

Rationale PROTECT DC examines whether stroke navigators can improve cardiovascular risk factors in urban underserved individuals newly hospitalized for stroke or ischemic attack. Within one year of hospital discharge, up to one third of patients no longer adhere to secondary prevention behaviors. Adherence rates are lower in minority-underserved groups, contributing to health disparities. In-hospital programs increase use of stroke prevention therapies but may not be as successful in underserved individuals. In these groups, low literacy, limited health care access, and sparse community resources may reduce adherence. Lay community health workers (‘navigators’) improve adherence in other illnesses through education and assisting in overcoming barriers to achieving desired health behaviors and obtaining needed healthcare services. Aims and design PROTECT DC is a Phase II, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial comparing in-hospital education plus stroke navigators to usual care. Atherogenic ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack survivors are recruited from Washington DC hospitals. Navigators meet with participants during the index hospitalization, perform home visits, and meet by phone. They focus on stroke education, medication compliance, and overcoming practical barriers to adherence. The interventions are driven by the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior. Study outcomes The primary dependent measure is a summary score of four objective measures of stroke risk factor control: systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein, hemoglobin Hb A1C, and antiplatelet agent pill counts. Secondary outcomes include stroke knowledge, exercise, dietary modification, smoking cessation. Conclusion PROTECT DC will determine whether a Phase III trial of stroke navigation for urban underserved individuals to improve adherence to secondary stroke prevention behaviors is warranted.